The beginning of the church in light of baptist bridism

A distinction in your theology, perhaps; but the gospels clearly mark Judas as an apostle, Acts records that his office another would take, and both Dr. Luke and you agree that someone else (who were called apostles) took that office, though you differ on who that was.

Your original contention that "the gifts were not given until after the resurrection" was in specific reference to a verse that mentions, for example, "gifts of healing" (see p. 2, where you were trying to prove chronology in regard to I Cor. 12). Yet no matter how you play it or dispensationalize it, there were disciples of Jesus clearly given the gift of healing before the time you advocate.

That explanation might possibly cover if we were just talking about Luke recording the historical event on one occasion. But he goes on in ch. 6 to clearly identify a collective "twelve". Were they the twelve or were they not? God so identifies them. He inspired Luke to call them that. I don't think we can pass that off as of little consequence.

So the disciples, gathered in Jerusalem according to the Lord's command, at least some of whom had received the Spirit, who were in one accord with prayer and supplication both before and after the the disastrous deed of Peter (to which they all complied), whom God poured out His Spirit of power on after the disastrous deed, never comprehended their mistake, and Luke recorded it for posterity (under inspiration) with no hint that anything was amiss?? Astounding.

Oh, and it seems that even when Paul mentions the twelve (I Cor. 15:5), he writes in such a way as to not include himself.

I recall that you have said this, but don't recall that you have shown it to be so.

I don't know of anyone who questions the official condition of Matthias who does not feel he must do so in order to protect the predetermined birth of the church at Pentecost idea. I just can't comprehend the soundness of exegesis of finding fault with an event that an inspired writer records without disapproval (and builds upon).

Finally, I would hope you would comment on a question by Mark that got lost in the fray - in which assembly did Christ sing?

 

But the Bible says,

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also."

So you think Simon believed something different than the other Samaritans? Do think Simon, like the devils of which James spake, only had a fearful belief in one God? And you are going to accuse me of not studying the Bible?



Mark Osgatharp

 

Simon was a baptized believer. The people who Jesus said would be made free were believers. He said,

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word then are you my disciples indeed and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

No one is freed from sin simply because he is born again; if that were the case saved people would never sin at all. Freedom from the power of sin comes as a believer grows in grace and knowledge and learns to obey Christ. That is what believing Simon had to learn.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Reread the gospel accounts of the apostles. The inspired writers do not say these would eventually become apostles, but, for example "the names of the twelve apostles are these:" (Matt. 10:2; see also Mark 3:13ff; Luke 6:12ff). It seems that perhaps in addition to labouring under the idea that a church couldn't exist with Christ the head present, you are also labouring under the misconception that Matthias and Paul could not have both been apostles.

Stands how? Your original statement, that there were no gifts before Pentecost, has been shown several times to be lacking in support. They had gifts and Christ gave them to them (before Pentecost).

It is not that he is mentioned or numbered - it is that God by inspiration names a collective "twelve" (apostles) in Acts 6 that includes Matthias. It comes down to something so simple as that either God is wrong or you are.

So are you saying you believe in two churches - one that was with Christ before Pentecost, and one that existed after Pentecost?? In which one did Christ sing?

 

Actually, Simon's belief was mentioned in conjunction with the others.

A reading of the whole context proves that the Jews who believed on Christ were not the same Jews who objected to Jesus statement. It could not be said of a believer in Jesus that he is a child of Satan or that Christ's word has no place in him.

I just don't see were you get the idea that "believed" really means "did not believe."

This is true so far as potential goes, but it is something we must put into practice. As Jesus told the believing Jews, "if you continue in my word..."

You mean the part where he commanded believers to,

"Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh."

Or the part where he warned them not to be,

"entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Both of which passages prove that it is entirely possible for a believer to be in spiritual bondage if he does not walk in the Spirit. That was exactly the case of Simon.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Yes, I have read that verse. In fact, I just preached on it week before last as I preached through the whole book of Galatians. So I have also read the following verse which says,

"If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

Being alive in the Spirit is a fact for every believer. Walking in the Spirit is an obligation of the believer which he may or may not perform; which is why a believer can be, as was believing Simon, practically speaking in bondage to sin.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Certainly your opinion is governed by when you think the church started. There is nothing in the verse itself (Eph. 4:8) that excludes gifts also being given before the resurrection.

Surely you can't fail to miss that God could have recorded the event of Acts 6 without He Himself classifying Matthias as part of the twelve.

Of course, the two examples you give are not of the same nature as Acts 1 anyway, considering the Scriptures do give disapproval to both Moses' smiting of the Rock and David & Bathsheba's adultery.

We have no real difference of opinion of the basic meaning of the word "ekklesia". But to assign the disciples who walked with Christ while He was upon the earth to no more than an assembly that doesn't even have to be religious borders on ridiculous.

Perhaps when you or anyone else would give something more than just naming the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and some verses, but rather explain how you believe they prove the church started on Pentecost, the discussion can continue.